1. The case involving damage to water supply pipes owned by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff on May 27, 2012 is an insured event.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive insurance contract for Category C with the insurance period from April 3, 2012 to April 3, 2013, the period of insurance between B and B, and the Defendant is a person who runs the luminous fish farm (hereinafter “instant fish farm”).

B. On May 7, 2012, B driven the above vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and caused damage to water pipes of the instant fish farm. Accordingly, the sea water flowing through water supply pipes was excessively supplied to one of the water tanks inside the instant fish farm and discharged a water tank into the sea through the wind, thereby releasing the water tank into the sea, and the other six water tanks discontinued the water supply of sea water, resulting in the suspension of the water supply of sea water and the luminous run down due to oxygen shortage and the increase of water temperature.

(hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The cost of restoring water supply pipes in the instant fish farm due to the instant accident is KRW 1.5 million.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including each number in the case of additional evidence), witness E's testimony, result of on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's obligation to pay insurance proceeds.

A. B caused the instant accident by negligence, while driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, due to the failure to carefully see the obstacles in the front and the surrounding areas of the vehicle. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay insurance proceeds equivalent to the amount of damages suffered by the Defendant according to the insurance contract concluded with B, as the water supply pipes of the instant fish farm were destroyed and damaged and the luminous fish is lost or discarded.

B. On the other hand, the Plaintiff recognized that he had a duty to pay insurance money for physical damage caused by the instant accident, but asserts that the damage caused by the loss of light language or the death of waste constitutes a special damage and that B did not have a duty to pay insurance money because it was known or could not have known.

However, the plaintiff's assertion is supported.